Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2015 · Candyland

Scott Kroeker
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Candyland

If surreal is what you wanted it is what you got! I really am not one to get too hung up on the process but rather the result. The result is very nice.

Mar 09, 2015 at 09:55 PM

Derek Weston
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Candyland

Really nice. Love the added light... probably raise the black levels, but that's just my taste right now.

And your before and after.... I should start doing that. You'd probably barely recognize some of my images... so I know how that goes... (and so did Ansel Adams and plenty of other creators -- so no shame)

(pre-emptive edit: no, I'm not comparing any of us to Adams... only speaking to the creative process)

Mar 09, 2015 at 11:11 PM

uintaangler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Candyland

Killer image!
One of the best I've seen from this area

Bob

Mar 09, 2015 at 11:48 PM

matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Candyland

Mark Metternich wrote:
That is kind of what I am talking about. Personally, I don't draw such lines. I think almost none of it is actually "true."

There is far too much grey area. Is a wide angle real? Like that new Canon 11-24? Is a Polarizer? Is black and white? Is a shrunk down moon from a wide angle? Is putting it back in as your eye saw it? Is long exposure water effects? How about color dodging? How about long exposure cloud effects? Is a sun star/flare? What about accentuating a light bleed? It focus stacking? Is exposure blending? How...Show more →

I know exactly what you're getting at, Mark, but in my opinion it's still pretty easy to differentiate (if "draw a line" is too harsh of a phrase) between what is possible in-camera, and what is not possible.

First of all, let's get one thing out of the way: no, the camera is not capturing human vision, or a wholly truthful representation of the world. It is interpreting a scene based on its sensor / film, and lens.

But for this exact reason folks like Galen Rowell opted for Velvia, instead of cheap drugstore neg film. It rendered the scene far more beautifully, in fact with even more saturation and contrast than human vision.

Like I said, it's still pretty easy to differentiate (roughly) between something that is largely created at the point of clicking the shutter, and something that is created (not merely transformed) almost entirely in post-production.

However, since I'm sure we could beat that dead horse forever, I'll propose this: Let's at least draw the line at lying. Insisting that something is completely natural and un-edited, when it absolutely is not, is nobody's idea of a good time. I don't think anybody here would disagree, no?

;-)

=Matt=

Mar 10, 2015 at 12:07 AM

Teper
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Candyland

Very cool shot, love the color.

Mar 10, 2015 at 03:31 AM

wbrad
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Candyland

Love your work. Nice job on this.

Wayne.

Mar 10, 2015 at 06:55 AM

Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Candyland

matthewsaville wrote:
.

However, since I'm sure we could beat that dead horse forever, I'll propose this: Let's at least draw the line at lying. Insisting that something is completely natural and un-edited, when it absolutely is not, is nobody's idea of a good time. I don't think anybody here would disagree, no?

there was a discussion about that a few years ago around here...when it was figured out that skies were being used from one event and dropped into another and passed off as the scene as shot or not mentioned that it was a serious lift, clean and place playing field...I remember it ending in...who cares, does it look good...this section isn't about photo journalism...its about art and creating something enjoyable to look at...it was a very polarizing discussion as you can imagine....

Mar 10, 2015 at 07:34 AM

dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Candyland

Mark Metternich wrote:
What I love about Matt's work is that he is not afraid to be edgy, creative and sort of almost graphic-like when some may frown on that type of approach. Personally, I love it. I like that he is not afraid to be that way. But, honestly I love all kinds of work.

I think he is well received here!

David

Mar 10, 2015 at 10:18 AM

matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Candyland

Travis Rhoads wrote:
there was a discussion about that a few years ago around here...when it was figured out that skies were being used from one event and dropped into another and passed off as the scene as shot or not mentioned that it was a serious lift, clean and place playing field...I remember it ending in...who cares, does it look good...this section isn't about photo journalism...its about art and creating something enjoyable to look at...it was a very polarizing discussion as you can imagine....

The person being lied to, that's who cares.

Like I said, if someone discloses their techniques, or at least reveals them when asked, I can still enjoy an image for what it is. I love to imagine what the view would be like from Mars, or Endor, or Tatooine. ;-)

But if someone is clearly lying, that just means they're either insecure / embarrassed about their style, or just too lazy to actually get out and find something breathtaking to photograph. And for such a person, I lose respect and interest very quick.

Mar 10, 2015 at 02:42 PM

Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Candyland

dgdg wrote:
I think he is well received here!

David

Agreed.

Mar 11, 2015 at 12:44 AM

Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Candyland

matthewsaville wrote:
I know exactly what you're getting at, Mark, but in my opinion it's still pretty easy to differentiate (if "draw a line" is too harsh of a phrase) between what is possible in-camera, and what is not possible.

First of all, let's get one thing out of the way: no, the camera is not capturing human vision, or a wholly truthful representation of the world. It is interpreting a scene based on its sensor / film, and lens.

But for this exact reason folks like Galen Rowell opted for Velvia, instead of cheap drugstore neg film. It rendered the scene far more...Show more →

Sure. I agree.

Mar 11, 2015 at 12:46 AM

Matt Anderson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Candyland

dwa652 wrote:
Totally Fantastic. You had a vision and executed it superbly. The colors and textures are beautiful.

I am curious ... how long did you have to work on this?

Thank you! I spent two different sessions on the image, 4-5 hours I guess. I take my time.

---------------------------------------------

Mark Metternich wrote:
Well, technically the "original" was actually only a bunch of 1's and O's and when viewed correctly in raw would be black and white (almost solid black) with almost no definition. But most people today think their cameras generic JPEG algorithm settings are the "original" but it isn't. But I'll try to not be so techie/geeky and change the subject.

Killer shot man! I love your work! I have always loved the fact that you don't mind being creative and even somewhat radical sometimes in your artistic vision in photography. Even with the stream of flack one can sometimes...Show more →

Thanks for the kind words, and, I love your work as well, very inspiring! The images I create are rarely pure " photo journalism ".
When we hosting the Hawaii and New Zealand workshop ?

---------------------------------------------

Slabshaft wrote:
Mark, I think you mean "ones" and "zeros"

And yes, nobody using a digital camera can claim being a purist anyway. If they do, they don't understand how their own digital camera actually works. The analog to digital conversion kills any notion of "purism".

Anyway, nice image. The composition is striking but simple and the glow is nice. I'd probably tone the highlights down a tiny bit if it were mine, but I appreciate your personal take.

Did you use an ND on camera? Looks like the RAW is dark on the top. I wonder if omitting the filter would...Show more →

Thanks for the nice words. Yep, there is a 2 stop GND taming the brighter top. I could see not using it as well!

---------------------------------------------

matthewsaville wrote:
I think the line in the sand gets drawn *after* serious burning & dodging, simple exposure / focus composites, and similar techniques that are relatively traditional.

A photograph only ceases to be a "true" photograph when things start to become seriously manipulated, added, erased, or, um, ...enlarged. Before that, I think folks are welcome to "go to town" on their Lightroom etc. basic editing. Sure there's such a thing as "over-editing" even in Lightroom itself, but that is usually just part of the learning curve.

That type of art certainly has its place, but IMO its place is in commercial stock photography,...Show more →

The sun was behind me, I believe slightly on the right, about to rise an hour later. So most of the light is from the horizon behind me, hence the angle. I took a hundred shots or more from various positions on the point, trying to get a sexy and compelling "near" to the near, middle, far, mantra of landscape photography.

---------------------------------------------

Travis Rhoads wrote:
if nothing else, this could be a mastercourse on post production...I am sure there is a lot to learn from the process you went through...and you came away with a unique image from a familiar place that in the end it got people talking...

Travis, great point. Nearly two decades of post processing images does come into play in "developing" images like this. I'm kicking around the idea of training and teaching some techniques, we'll see. It would need to be with people who already have a decent understanding of post processing, and taking them to a higher level. I'm a lead photographer, trainer, and post processor for team of very talented artists, in my day job.

---------------------------------------------

tjny wrote:
Excellent final image Mat, appreciate the notes on PP and inclusion of original image.

Often, after seeing a terrific image on FM, I have wondered how original image looked like and what are the acceptable limits of PP. TFS.

I think it's important to see what has taken place in the post processing aspect. Many, if not most of the images posted here, and on many other forums, encounter lots of processing. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I will say, I believe it's crucial and imperative in expressing ones artistry, vision, and craft.

Thank you so much everyone for taking the time to comment, and express your thoughts.

Mar 12, 2015 at 07:13 AM

Matt Anderson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Candyland

Derek Weston wrote:
Really nice. Love the added light... probably raise the black levels, but that's just my taste right now.

And your before and after.... I should start doing that. You'd probably barely recognize some of my images... so I know how that goes... (and so did Ansel Adams and plenty of other creators -- so no shame)

(pre-emptive edit: no, I'm not comparing any of us to Adams... only speaking to the creative process)

Hi Derek. I in fact did have the black levels much higher. I had to restrain myself. In my day job of premedia, we are always trying to make images "pop". High contrast, detail, many times, in your face imagery. I have to restrain myself, and it's not easy. The hardest image for me personally to create are those delicate pastel-high key images ( with no shadow detail ). I need to do more of those types, for better balance!

---------------------------------------------

dgdg wrote:
I think he is well received here!

David

Your too kind.

Mar 12, 2015 at 07:16 AM

doug515
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Candyland

Bottom line; it's art, I love it, I would hang it large!

Mar 12, 2015 at 09:19 AM

Tim Knutson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Candyland

We should ask ourselves; "what would I want to look at on my wall ?"

Oh, never mind. 5 different photographers, 6 different answers.

Nice image.

Mar 12, 2015 at 01:21 PM

jboucher50
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Candyland

outstanding! this is an amazing image. the photograph is stunning in it's own right, but the post processing has turned this into a work of art that should be printed large and hung on the wall.

wish I knew how to process images. thanks for the inspiration!!

Mar 12, 2015 at 02:21 PM

bktools
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Candyland

That is a ART!

Bob

Mar 12, 2015 at 03:53 PM

JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Candyland

Travis Rhoads wrote:
there was a discussion about that a few years ago around here...when it was figured out that skies were being used from one event and dropped into another and passed off as the scene as shot or not mentioned that it was a serious lift, clean and place playing field...I remember it ending in...who cares, does it look good...this section isn't about photo journalism...its about art and creating something enjoyable to look at...it was a very polarizing discussion as you can imagine....

Hey Travis,

I don't recall "who cares" as the final result of that. In fact, it was quite clear the vast majority of the forum was quite upset with being lied to. And the final result was that if someone is in fact taking the sky from one event and then pasting them into a totally different composition from days/weeks later, that full disclosure was the proper course of action. Same as pasting moons or other objects into a scene.

What we said was we didn't care if someone did it, but only that they needed to say they did it and not try to pass it off as being untainted when in fact it had been manipulated with objects from other shots being pasted into another. But that isn't what Matt did here anyway, Matt simply processed a raw image here, the same as 99% of us do here.

So not to Lie about compositing objects was the final conclusion there.

Jim

Mar 12, 2015 at 04:31 PM

Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Candyland

I should have been more clear...and clarified that yes, as you stated...as long as there was full disclosure about the compositing of multiple images into one, I just remember those that felt that it was not proper to even post them were very much in the minority and that most thought it was ok to post them anyway...thus the who cares...I for one still stand behind the notion that posting a composite...doesn't belong on this board, that is digital art, and I think there is a forum for that....

...and I know that is not what Matt did...and I don't think anyone has said that he did...

Mar 14, 2015 at 10:08 AM

ChrisKayler
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Candyland

Thanks for showing the original and final. The final is totally within the realm of realism, in some small way, but only through your excellent processing. It's abstract and surreal and out of this world. Very well done. Love the image man.

Mar 15, 2015 at 11:38 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Landscape Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.